377 Ill. App. 3d 602 - Johnson v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably 381 Ill. App. 3d 41 - Collins v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance (2008), 382 Ill. App. 3d 526 - Progressive Premier Insurance v. Cannon (2008)
3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 156 Ill. 2d 384 - Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp. · 177 Ill. 2d 473 - American States Insurance v. Koloms · 214 Ill. 2d 11 - Hobbs v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest · 78 Ill. 2d 420 - Menke v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. · 57 Ill. 2d 330 - Glidden v. Farmers Automobile Insurance
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'SEE DECLARATION FOR LIMIT OF LIABILITY AND PREMIUM,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would not be difficult to find an ambiguity created by such a listing of the bodily injury liability limit for each person insured. It could easily be interpreted that an insured should enjoy a total limit of $200,000 in coverage because a figure of $100,000 would be shown for each pickup truck. There would be little to suggest in such a listing that the parties intended that coverage was to be limited to that provided for only one of the two pickup trucks. It would be more reasonable to assume that the parties intended that, in return for the two premiums, two $100,000 coverage amounts were afforded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there is no per se rule that listing the numerical limits more than once on the declarations page creates an ambiguity which results in allowing the policies to be stacked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.